Proxemic distance – the physical space maintained between interlocutors during communication – constitutes one of the most culturally variable yet systematically structured paralinguistic categories, encoding social hierarchy, intimacy, and politeness independently of verbal content. This article examines proxemic distance as a paralinguistic parameter within the broader semantic-pragmatic reclassification of nonverbal means in Uzbek and English, situating it alongside the holonymic-meronymic, axiological-gender, and affirmation-negation axes already identified within this research programme. Drawing on Edward Hall's foundational proxemic zone model together with subsequent cross-cultural measurements of interpersonal distance, and on qualitative evidence from Uzbek literary prose, corpus sources, and prior Uzbek-language pragmalinguistic scholarship, the study classifies the four Hallian proxemic zones – intimate, personal, social, and public – according to how each is culturally realised in Uzbek and English communicative practice. The analysis indicates that while the formal zone architecture is shared across the two cultures, Uzbek communicative norms compress the personal and social zones relative to the Anglo-American baseline in contexts governed by kinship, age, and gender hierarchy, while simultaneously enforcing markedly wider intimate-zone restrictions between unrelated adults of the opposite sex. These findings extend proxemic theory into a contrastive Uzbek-English framework and carry implications for intercultural pragmatics, translation, and language pedagogy.
Proxemic Distance as A Paralinguistic Category: Spatial Encoding of Social Hierarchy and Intimacy in Uzbek And English Communicative Discourse
DOI:
Keywords:
Abstract
References
Abduazizova, D. A. (2021). Nonverbal means of intercultural communication: A comparative-linguistic study. Foreign Languages in Uzbekistan, 1(36), 114–124.
Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and Context: Essays on Body Motion Communication. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1(1), 49–98.
Hall, E. T. (1963). A system for the notation of proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 65(5), 1003–1026.
Hall, E. T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday.
Hall, E. T. (1968). Proxemics. Current Anthropology, 9(2/3), 83–92.
Remland, M. S., Jones, T. S., & Brinkman, H. (1995). Interpersonal distance, body orientation, and touch: Effects of culture, gender, and age. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135(3), 281–297.
Sommer, R. (1969). Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design. Prentice-Hall.
Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., Hilpert, P., et al. (2017). Preferred interpersonal distances: A global comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(4), 577–592.
Watson, O. M., & Graves, T. D. (1966). Quantitative research in proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 68(4), 971–985.